Article by Robert Force and Anthony J. Mavronicolas
The current prominence and interest in “alternative dispute resolution” is ample testimony to the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Disputes arising from maritime transactions and events are no exception. Article III of the Constitution of the United States confers upon the federal courts jurisdiction over cases and controversies that arise under admiralty and maritime law. Thus, from the very establishment of the United States, the traditional judicial process has played a major role in resolving maritime disputes. Except for the lack of the availability of jury trials, maritime cases today are litigated in federal courts in a manner similar to other types of civil cases.
Some maritime disputes, however, are not submitted to the courts for resolution. Instead, the parties may have opted to submit their disputes for resolution through the process of arbitration. Maritime arbitration is not a recent phenomenon. Its history has been described in the literature, and there is a wealth of materials discussing the proceedings and procedures of maritime arbitration throughout the world. It is not the purpose of this Article to replicate or even to summarize those works. Furthermore, the preeminent organized bodies through which arbitration is conducted in the Anglo-American world, the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association and the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc. (SMA) in New York, have also been amply covered in the literature.
About the Author
Robert Force. Niels F. Johnsen Professor of Maritime Law, Director of the Maritime Law Center of Tulane University School of Law.
Anthony J. Mavronicolas. J.D. Tulane Law School 1978. The author practices law with the New York law firm of Hill, Rivkins, Loesberg, O'Brien, Mulroy & Hayden and has represented clients in numerous maritime arbitrations.
Citation
65 Tul. L. Rev. 1461 (1991)